Talk:Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spam on top of the article[edit]

There is this text “india was always growing under the shadow of Russia and US technology , they always copy cut the technology of the west and the east.” as the first line of the article. Please get it removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SunLikeStar (talk • contribs) 08:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction in fuel types[edit]

The opening paragraph of this article says that the first stage uses solid fuel, but the section on the first stage says that it uses hypergolic (liquid) fuel. Which of these is correct? --Apyule 23:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifications(Hope this helps)[edit]

The first stage is sub-divide into two.

1a which uses solid fuel(HTPB) for the main core booster.

2a which uses liquid fuel(N2O4/UDMH) for the 4 strap-ons.


See table on right hand side below the first .jpeg for details. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk • contribs)

I think that this explanation is suitable and I am therefore removing the self-contradiction tag. If someone feels that it is necessary to include a bit more information about these two parts of the first stage, please feel free to add it to the article. DarthVader 12:55, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality dispute?[edit]

There's a neutrality tag applied to the "Launches" section, with no comments at all in here. I'm removing it until someone posts a good reason for disputing GSLV's launches. Jimgeorge 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 18:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GSLV-F02 failure[edit]

The reference to ISRO images (or even the detailed information on failure analysis given in ISRO's 2006-07 annual report) does not mention that the the launcher was intentionally destroyed. 59.96.185.88 (talk) 20:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Failure vs Partial failure for D3[edit]

This has been discussed for similar failures. A single component failure which causes the payload to be lost is an outright failure not a partial failure. "Partial Failure" only applies if the payload is still usable. This is regardless of test objectives met during the flight. Therefore D3 would be an outright failure, not a partial failure. --GW… 11:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

There are too many images in this article. It is now getting to a point at which there are display issues, and several images which are displayed under non-free licences are redundant, and hence violate the fair use criteria. I think it would be a good idea to cut down on fair use images. --GW… 13:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree. There are 3 images related to GSLV-F04. Perhaps 2 of these can be removed. -- LogicDictates (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I think we could lose the rollout one, and the one in the infobox. The D3 image could then be moved to the infobox. --GW… 16:01, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. --GW… 21:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Insat 4CR Lifespan[edit]

It seems that as of late some moron has reintroduced evidence that Insat 4CR went AWOL for 5 days. This claim is ofcourse false as the ISRO refuted the claim that the satellite went AWOL. READ THE LINK BELOW before re-inserting false claims.

http://www.hindustantimes.com/News-Feed/bangalore/ISRO-refutes-INSAT-vanishing-story/Article1-263347.aspx

Moronic tag[edit]

The tag that exists on the current version of this article is just stupid. If, as I have been informed, it is standard practice, then that is simply stupidity multiplied.

The tags were created on this project to draw quick attention to something that the reader might not know, e.g., the article is in a state of flux due to it being involved in a current event, or the article is overloaded with bias, or the article is not reliably sourced, etc. But this tag, detailing when the rocket was supposed to launch, what kind of rocket it was, what happened to the rocket, who will get fired because the rocket didn't work, etc, is NOT in keeping with the mission of the tags, when they were first created. This tag is basically a new section of the article. Hey, that's an idea, why not actually just write a section and add it to the article? Oh, but that wouldn't satisfy somebody's urge to tinker endlessly with what I thought was a good thing, but now realize maybe should just be phased out together.

Would somebody please justify to me why we need a tag which offers the detail which should just be in the article? Because right now I have to conclude that tags like these are just the product of some geek who has nothing better to do on the weekends than come up with new ways to hang ornaments on the Wiki-tree, instead of writing frigging articles, which is what we are supposed to be doing. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you have missed the point of the tags. They serve both as temporal templates, and to provide a brief summary of information which is changing rapidly, and hence may be out of date in a number of articles. They are usually removed shortly after spacecraft separation, however following a launch failure it is normal to keep them in place for a few days as speculation changes surrounding the cause of the failure. Since information regarding this launch seems to be settling down, unless there are further developments I feel that it could probably be removed tomorrow morning. This should not be accomplished by blanking the template, however, but by procedures established within the relevant WikiProject. --GW… 08:19, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well the "brief summary of information which is changing rapidly" was not originally a function of any tag. I see what you are saying, but I still think that it's more than adequate to let people know that the event is currently in flux, so that they know that the info in the article is subject to change. This is just one editor that thinks that this is just plain unnecessary, but obviously, it's been carved in adobe, and I won't waste my time or yours trying to change it. 74.178.230.17 (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page not found[edit]

Hi! Reference # 7 cannot be traced. Page not found message is found instead. Can we remove that link. பரிதிமதி (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

boosters is burning longer than first stage engine[edit]

Hi, from the specification detail, after the first stage rocket engine is close, the boosters shall continue burning 60 seconds. In this period, the body of first stage became "dead weight"? Ultrahabbit(talk) 1:57, Oct 29, 2012(UTC)


Yes , the boosters and the first stage are jettisoned together after burnout is complete for both reducing unnecessary complexity. - 994u — Preceding unsigned comment added by 994u (talk • contribs) 08:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Variant: GSLV T5[edit]

In this interview, ISRO mentions the December 2013 launch of a variant called GSLV T5, which may be used in 2016 to launch the Chandrayaan-2 rover to the Moon. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just a mis-print or mis-heard. The launch in December was the GSLV-D5. D5 is a sort of mission number indicating that this was the fifth demonstrator mission. Prad2609 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to remove Image from the "Launch History" section[edit]

The image to the right of the table in the "Launch History" section should be moved to another section to facilitate proper readability. Please make the necessary changes.

Ramakrishnan.nikhil (talk) 12:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GSLV Mk.3[edit]

Should this page atleast make a reference to GSLV Mk III ?. I understand that the vehicle is a different beast than the GSLV Mk.1,2. But we need a link atleast in the See also section linking the two. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.11.20.161 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Launch History - Should it include the GSLV Mk-III scheduled launches as well?[edit]

Should the launch history include the scheduled launches of the GSLV Mk-III as well? Have included here-in. Feel free to remove if you think it doesn't sound okay. Prad2609 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page include the GSLV Mk-III[edit]

The GSLV Mk-III added by me in the launch history section was removed by User:Johnxxx9 commenting that I had confused the Mk-III and Mk-II. I would like to clarify that I had not.

The Mk-III has been cited in the article as a variant in the main article. I thought that since this was the case the launch history must reflect the upcoming launches of this variant as well.

The Mk-III, technically, is not a variant of the GSLV Mk-I or Mk-II. These variants are similar and differ in engines used and not in design. The Mk-III is a whole new design and I think this page should not include the Mk-III in the variants section. On balance, people looking for information on the GSLV Mk-III may also land up on this page due to similarity in name. I propose that the Mk-III be linked to in the also see section rather than in the main article space. I am making these changes and if you feel the thinking is incorrect, kindly explain here and feel free to revert.Prad2609 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. While I am not familiar with any launch vehicle, it is a fact that the GSLV Mk-III is still called a "Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle", and therefore it MUST have a section in this article (linking to its parent article), not just a link in the 'See also' section. If its technology is not a variant derived from the previous GSLVs, then you can state so in its corresponding section for the benefit of the readers and of Wikipedia. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MkIII isn't a variant of GSLV. It's a completely different launch vehicle and its flights should not be included in the GSLV article. It's like adding Delta IV flights in Delta II launch history, which would be incorrect since they are different launch vehicles. Same case here. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It would be more like adding Delta IV flights to the Thor/Delta launch history, which we do. I think the best solution here would be to split off articles for the Mk.I and II, keeping this as a general page on the GSLV "family", like we did with the Deltas. --W. D. Graham 18:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the proposal above by W D Graham. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:30, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that there is sufficient RELIABLE independent sources available to go around for separate pages for the Mk-I and Mk-II. However, it is worth considering. But, as User:BatteryIncluded says, the name of the Mk-III does contain the GSLV name which is sufficient to cause confusion in the minds of people searching for such information. ISRO uses the name LVM3 internally for GSLV Mk-III for technical and space presentations, but continue to call it the Mk-III in their public web page and media interviews. I would suggest adding a new section mentioning the GSLV Mk-III with a brief outline of the vehicle along with a link to the main GSLV Mk-III article. I would also suggest adding a separate Launch History sub-section for the GSLV Mk-III. Is this agreeable? Prad2609 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I support the proposal by Prad2609. The issue here, Johnxxx9, is NOT the technology/variant, but the naming and facilitating and directing the reader to the desired information. To completely take care of any confusion, it will be necessary to clarify and link accordingly all the terms used for this launch vehicle, e.g: LVM3, GSLV, Mk-III. It will not need more than a single sub-section in this article. Cheers, --BatteryIncluded (talk) 17:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had previously suggested changing the name MKIII article into LVM3 for the same purpose. Even ISRO has started using this name to differentiate MkIII from the basic GSLV. Technologically speaking, the variants of GSLV are only MKI and MkII (and all the sub variants like MKIIA, MkIIB). The meaning of the word variant is "Deviating from a standard, usually by only a slight difference". Therefore in my opinion MkI and MKII do fit the bill as variants of GSLV but MkIII does not as it is a new launch vehicle. I think my example of the Delta family of rockets was somewhat incorrect. Basically, the idea is this: We have the PSLV which has variants such as XL, CA and so on. We have the GSLV which has variants such as MkI, MkII. And then we have MkIII(or LVM3). I think we should not add to the confusion that LVM3 is a variant of GSLV. So, I suggest we rename the MkIII article as LVM3 or we have subsection in the GSLV article about MkIII saying that it's not a variant of GSLV. I would oppose the inclusion of MKIII under the variants section in GSLV. It's place would be in the See Also section. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, ISRO still uses GSLV Mk-III when talking to the press and on its official website. See here and here as examples from January 2014. They have not changed the name on their official website under the section on Launch Vehicles. If you read my comment above carefully, I ask for a new section on the GSLV Mk-III and a new sub-section under Launch History. I am not asking for it to be called a variant of the GSLV Mk-I or Mk-II. I hope this clarifies my comment above. Prad2609 (talk) 13:34, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that GSLV MkIII is the term that remains in popular use. And I also agree that a section on MkIII is needed. But, I do not think there is any necessity to have the launch history of MkIII in this article. The MkIII section should inform any potential readers that MkIII is not actually a variant of the GSLV and should contain a very brief description on the vehicle itself. But for anything more about MkIII (including history, information about stages and launch history), the reader can refer to MkIII article. --Johnxxx9 (talk) 18:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ISRO is still calling it the GSLV Mk III so it would be strange not to include something about it here. Someone added a section under "Variants" and I added a sentence under "History." Both have links to the Mk III article. If we decide that the Mk III is in fact a completely different thing, then we should add a "Not to be confused with" hatnote to the top of the article. But I think that would be wrong. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just confused by this issue myself, I wanted to count how many launches India had planned for 2017, and thought this list included all GSLV launches. Then I vaguely remembered that the Mark III was supposed to have its first launch soon. And no, the "not to be confused with" label was not a help. In fact, it doesn't really make much sense. Greg (talk) 20:30, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnxxx9 please note the numerous people confused by the status quo. Greg (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

I've reverted a couple recent edits changing the current, objective and neutral, launch history to one based solely on claims made by first-party sources (i.e. ISRO) with a vested interest. In order to portray the GSLV in the best possible light, ISRO inflate its reliability statistics, claiming D1 and F4 as successful in spite of the former leaving its payload in a completely useless orbit and the latter costing its satellite around five years' fuel. Reliable third-party sources consider these launches an outright failure and a partial failure respectively. It is completely inappropriate to change this based only on the views of an organisation with a clear and visible bias. --W. D. Graham 22:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the reversion of edits. However, shouldn't ISRO's official position also be mentioned in keeping with NPoV? I agree they're the only people calling it a success, and have their bias but it is an important view that needs to be reflected in the article. Perhaps it is an important aspect of the Indian space programme - nationalistic or scientific self-pride, perhaps, not allowing scientists to accept a failure unless catastrophic (i.e. launch vehicle gets destroyed or re-enters). I think mentioning in the launch history itself as is done for the GSLV-D1 in the notes may be a good way to reflect ISRO's PoV? Prad2609 (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with that - I have no problem at all with mentioning ISRO's position - and indeed we should cover all angles - my objection was with giving it more weight than independent experts and using it as the primary basis for statistics and summaries. I felt that ISRO's position was already covered in the table, but perhaps it could be clarified - especially for F4. Do you have any ideas for a good way to achieve this? --W. D. Graham 17:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a line in the notes section of the Launch History for F4 as in D1. I think this should suffice. Other ideas are welcome. Prad2609 (talk) 17:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This maybe helpful GSLV MkIII, the next milestone, in case you are wondering about ISRO's motivations - there is no talk of nationalistic or scientific self-pride, but more about the engineering issues involved (as per ISRO Chairman K. Radhakrishnan, again a primary source). Obviously, it is ISRO's version of the events, but I would stress that there is no other version of the event - all other reporting is rather speculative, as reports generated by ISRO are not public, and they (ISRO) remain the only authoritative source on those launch events. I am yet to see ISRO engage in outright propaganda; in general - they stick to the technical issues IMO.
Regarding GSLV F04, the chairman says "the control system of a strap-on stage failed because a gas motor stopped. This has again to do with the component and has nothing to do with the vehicle design." Regarding the GSLV D1, he says "essentially it was because of the blockage in one of the feed lines [by a lump of lead in the NO (dinitrogen tetroxide) feed line of the strap-on (S3) liquid engine L-40’s gas generator."
I am guessing that ISRO also makes distinctions based on design issues and fabrication issues, which obviously also helps them proclaim a higher success rate. May be some of the other info in the linked article can be useful here, but I would leave that for the more regular contributors here to decide that. Cheers :) Anir1uph | talk | contrib 20:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Anir1uph, the success of a launch vehicle is decided by whether it is able to place its payload in intended or near-intended orbit. That is the reason you hear statistics about accuracy of orbit achieved being shared by ISRO after launch. No matter what the cause of the failure to achieve intended orbit, it is the failure of the launch vehicle. This is brutal but this is what makes space science so fascinating. I may be wrong in my comments above for the reasons why I think ISRO claims these launches are a success and I am only speculating. I also disagree with your position that ISRO's version of the event is the only one that exists. I believe that there are always multiple interpretations of any event. Prad2609 (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks :) Surely there are multiple interpretations of an event, but I see a lot of sources "interpreting" without access to data. Such commentary is non-serious guesswork and should not be included here. Anir1uph | talk | contrib 18:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article Russian route characterizes launches as "successful, sub-optimal and failed". Anir1uph | talk | contrib 01:00, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

S139 Isp[edit]

The summary gives the specific impulse of the first stage as 166 which is obviously wrong. (Note that the PSLV page gives the Isp of the essentially identical core stage as 269.) 69.72.92.96 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC) Also the summary gives the burn time as 100 seconds while the text gives 109 (giving 100 for the S125 used for the first launch only). 69.72.92.35 (talk) 07:49, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

typos[edit]

History - GSlV-F02 to GSLV-F02; INx-T-4C to INSAT-4C

The next sentence is garbled; I suggest: GSLV-F04, the fifth GSLV flight, launched INSAT-4CR into a...

Third stage - cyrogenic to cryogenic

Launch History - D6 - six metre to six meters; it's to its 69.72.92.139 (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Launch History - INSAT-3DR[edit]

The text states that INSAT-3DR is the second heaviest satellite orbited by the GSLV Mark II but the mass given, 2211 kg, is the highest (the other two being 2117 kg for GSAT-6 and 1980 kg for GSAT-14). 69.72.92.100 (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Future launches[edit]

There are now two different future launches labelled F09. 69.72.92.19 (talk) 06:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected; thanks for the notice. — JFG talk 08:57, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Those recent additions to schedule are not from citable source. Ohsin (talk) 04:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited a source: the schedule is taken from Steve Pietrobon's launch manifest, which is a well-known RS for spaceflight matters, and was last updated on April 15. I have added some sources for information about the individual satellites, if that's what you had in mind. Cheers, — JFG talk 05:28, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: I know of his personally curated list but it is not 'source' in my opinion. Such personally run websites should provide their references to be citable. For example Independence-X rover in that list is not running anymore for GLXP as far as I know. Ohsin (talk) 05:48, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and I have only included spacecraft which are corroborated by another source. Obviously, for future flights, plans may change, and we have a tension between the desire to report them and the avoidance of speculating on the future. My personal hunch would be to remove any mission beyond 2018, with perhaps exceptions for interplanetary missions which have more prestige and a longer planning cycle; what do you think? — JFG talk 05:55, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@JFG: GSLV MkII has a very limited launch rate of two and maaaay be three if we stretch but there is no way four of them would launch before Chandrayaan-2! I understand once we start accommodating other payloads as news comes without factoring in ground reality it can become a weird situation. We need a way to deal with dated or unreliable information without chucking them off completely. For NexStar in that list, from source it is not clear if a launch contract is even there, though GSLV baselined dual launch could be considered good indication. I would say if a scheduled launch had no updates after significant time, say greater than a year or two, It could be kept on as 'planned', this would also encourage others to seek any updates on them, while other launches with recently updated information can be kept above them. Removing missions would erase record of known to occur launches (like all GSATs) just because there were no recent updates, official docs at least show progress on GSATs even if no set dates. The way Indian media reports and how official docs mention schedules, we would always have conflicts like we have for GSAT-6A and GSAT-7A at the moment or that GSAT-9 / SAARCSAT merge up. Ohsin (talk) 08:51, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The scheduling does look unrealistic; they should be able to fly 2 or 3 missions this year and again 2 or 3 next year. Plus they are busy with getting LVM3 ready. I have slapped {{dated info}} tags on GSAT 6A and the NexStar pair as information is sketchy. An official update on those projects would be nice to have. — JFG talk 03:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:13, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image of SJCE rocket images[edit]

There are plenty of GSLV images available in net. Someone is promoting a petty engineering college named SJCET by placing a photo of GSLV from their college. I do lack an image with my own copy right. I have informed the ISRO public relation cell to make necessary changes.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpvipin (talk • contribs) 14:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You could have replaced the image with one which is undisputed. I have replaced it with an image that even ISRO is using on its official website and that also without properly crediting the author as is requested(read required) by him. So feel free to send them another email on how to respect copyrights. Ohsin (talk) 18:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Geosynchronous_Satellite_Launch_Vehicle&oldid=1207390653"